Professor Dr. Sir Roger Penrose on new clues to the basics of conscious mentality
Вставка
- Опубліковано 11 кві 2012
- Professor Dr. Sir Roger Penrose is Emeritus Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford and has received numerous prizes and awards, among them the 1988 Wolf Prize for Physics, which he shared with Stephen Hawking for their joint contribution to our understanding of the universe. Prof. Sir Penrose has also written several books for the public, including 'The Emperor's New Mind' and most recently 'Cycles of Time'.
The lecture was hold on 4 April 2012 at ETH Zurich, when Roger Penrose was awarded the Richard R. Ernst Medal.
So incredible to see Professor Penrose win the Nobel Prize.
One of the greatest minds.
Hand drawn slides give an insight into his mind more than sterile computer generated images. These will be held in a museum one day and have high value for science and history. This could well be the seed of an as yet unknown giant leap in science.
Yes, I love his drawings-on-plastic. So i am not the only one liking them!
I'd imagine the next generation of mathematicians will be devising 3d Penrose tiles.
@suli san, one giant leap for us, but only a small step for Sir Roger.
Yes! I love this man and it's so refreshing to have a video without lengthy introductions. 👏🏻
He's a Horace Slughorn species....... a heavy-duty mathematical intellect......I've always liked this guy......superb content !
+realcygnus penrose swings the heavy lumber ,
Switch off your radio, buddy. We don't need any of that poetry around here.
Can you believe an entire university has only a handful of subscribers?
thats cause theres no rap theme song or piano kitties etc
@realcynus, Slughorn was less of a realist than Sir Roger, and much more cowardly.
Another fine lecture by Roger--Thanks for posting ETH Zürich.
Penrose is just the best, this is an amazing lecture!
His Ideas are truly innovative to me while at the same time being rather grounded (giving predictions, being motivated without introducing too many new concepts etc) AND Crazy/not hholding too tight on established ideas. and just well thought through. He also seems so nice to me and likable :)
"Crazy might be all right." That's my guiding principle.
I like his drawings and how he fiddles with the transparencies.
Information is stable so knowledge is stable, what is fluctuating is understanding.
Dr Penrose is more then a cientist. He lets us into his world where he is fumbling about trying to figure stuff out just like everybody else. He exposes a lot of things for our imagination to ponder. The uncertainties are the frontier and somehow he pulls you right up to that edge for a look into the abyss of the unknown. Its daunting how much work will be needed even just figure out where the the next milestone is. As Dr Penrose clearly shows by drawing on multible cientists and theorists from all over the globe, no one entity is going to figure it all out any time soon. And then, somebody like Einstein comes a long and assembles that key insight, that key imagery for the rest of us and we can start building yet a new world on that.
Always enjoy the creative thinking of Penrose. His illustration of 3 worlds has me thinking about what small amount of space is occupied with matter, and what small amount of matter is occupied with life, and I suppose, what small amount of life is occupied with human consciousness. But the entire volume of these things seems necessary, i.e. you can't just have those parts directly involved with consciousness. In the same way one molecule of water does posses wetness.
Experiencing this lecture was like being a non-Italian speaking person listening to an Italian opera. Without understanding the words I can still experience the beauty.
Of course, it's a pleasure to take a crack at questions like those, for whatever my responses may be worth. Thanks for bringing it up.
Thanks for sharing. Penrose is very insightful.
I love when he says about the "mystery" that goes beyond Schrödinger... meaning "I suspect about it but DARE Not to say it " . Science full of Dogmas and Taboos..
How I miss those overhead projectors. They've all went digital in the US, and they want everyone to learn how to use PowerPoint. To be honest, a grease pencil and acetate is much faster, and gets the same thought across. I used to make those acetates, by typing what I wanted, on paper, in a word processor, then running that through a copier using acetate. It took a whole five minutes. You did the math in the blank area you provided, with a grease pencil. Sometimes older is great.
Yes they were a fine tool. I recall also losing and searching for the next one I wanted to show like Roger sometimes does. Not a big problem if one took a little extra care to keep them in order but I always forgot to.
The key is understand free will as a gimmick of our mental machinery --- in other words, as a biological adaptation. We have evolved the capacity to represent in our minds not only states in which the world actually is, but states in which it could possibly be. We can match those possible state representations up with our goals and desires, and act accordingly to avoid harm and pursue reward. The more evolved, the more intelligent an organism is, the fewer things headed its way are unavoidable.
I love Sir Roger.
I like penrose and I appreciate how he tries new ways of understanding physics and consciousness we need more people like him who are not scared to say what he thinks in front of people who may or may not believe him. he is a little hard to understand him sometime he acts like mr magoo and makes me laugh thanks roger
I needed to see this 6 years ago
Never mind.Whenever you catch the fish from the sea it will be fresh.
Wonderful!! Waiting for his new book coming out next year 'Eschermatics'
Two books that I really enjoyed, were 'Cycles of Time' and 'Shadows of the Mind'
Thank you ethzurich for this very high quality lecture!! :)
All very neat and tidy. I appreciate your response, good sir. I think I have an irrational antipathy for that phrase, mental computation.
Penrose is brilliant.
He needs a few more titles.
Yes... How about Herr Professor Sir Von Ober Leutenant the Count Meister Penrose...?
He just got the Nobel Prize :)
I love this man. He's gently called bullshit on string theory for a lot of years now.
I remember my first day of school,where i wrap my arms and legs around a lampost,and knew in advance that i was going to do that,which proves that i was re living my life.I remember thinking that I'm not going to do it this time,but at the last moment thought oh what the heck.
They compete for the attention of the executive modules, whose task is to narrow down the input stream by emphasizing the important parts and ignoring the unimportant ones, finally weaving the whole thing into a coherent "narrative" or story, which is deposited in short-term memory and then experienced as the "stream of consciousness". This is, at any rate, one popular working model.
Consciousness itself, in the sense of "awareness of the environment", seems to be a complicated process of competition between an enormous number of different input signals (from the senses as well as from other parts of the brain), which takes places between executive "attention-directing" modules and various short-term memory buffers.
be interested to see Rogers take on the Gamma microtubulin ring comlexs math
Compare to a computer that we are using. The brains serves as both the display and the player. The collapse of wave function is like transforming the computer codes into images on the display screen. Therefore, there are likely a set of rules for the transformation yet to be discovered whether OR is the actual transformation process. Is the transformation process equal to 'consciousness' because new information/
content is brought to the player throught it?
The nature of consciousness is a very difficult problem, that much is certain. We are far from solving this problem, at present. However, we have made a good deal of progress. There is now a general consensus that the mind is divided into a number of specialized "modules", each with its own dedicated brain circuitry and its own computational task, and that what we experience as thought and perception is actually a kind of computation, performed on information patterns stored in neurons.
Genius!!! He saw beyond Eistein!
I thought his talk was interesting, but I would have liked to have seen him address what seems to me like the obvious resolution to the problem he brings up about humans and mathematics. That resolution is that we do well at mathematics via heuristic processes. This also resolves the problem which arises when one considers that if we did have some kind of reasoning that transcended computation then we might expect ourselves to be far better at mathematics than we actually are.
For a detailed technical refutation of Penrose's contention, please see the 1999 paper of physicist Max Tegmark titled "The Importance of Quantum Decoherence in Brain Processes". Quoting from Tegmark's conclusion:
"In summary, our decoherence calculations have indicated that there is nothing fundamentally quantum mechanical about cognitive processes in the brain... [T]he computations in the brain appear to be of a classical rather than quantum nature...
and he's also a good comic illustrator!
Would you mind telling me precisely which experiments you're referring to? I have searched far and wide for papers announcing any such result, with no success. I did encounter a number of papers announcing the opposite result, which I will be happy to share with you should you care to see them.
Please also see the article titled "Study Rules Out Fröhlich Condensates in Quantum Consciousness Model", from phys.org (2009).
Very roughly, the brain is made of two kinds of cell: neurons and glial cells. The glial cells play a mostly structural role, providing tension or stiffness in certain key places, defining various separate areas of neuronal cortex, insulating neural clusters, and acting as guide trellises during brain development. The neurons are the units of computation. They act to store and transmit information by the frequency and intensity of their patterns of firing (conducting electrochemical signals).
super position may have a usage in quantum manipulation but has no real world usage [precollapse and multiple observers can be used to negate any state back to superpostion even if has already collapsed iinto one of the possable states .
Tegmark's computations are simple, straightforward consequences deduced from standard, well-established textbook QM. Until there's a major revision of the Standard Model, there will be no possible "correction" of these computations. For a different line of refutation, from the cognitive science side of the issue rather than the QM side, please see the paper by Rick Grush and Patricia Smith Churchland called "Gaps in Penrose's Toilings".
The lecture was very enlightening.. But I left with few questions
# As the image of three word picture ( mind , Math , physical worlds ) indicates, Physical world to be subset of the mathematical world but is it not limited by the Hilberts therom " Physics can NOT be automatized.. "
Does computation imply the lack of choice and intention?
The progress isn't the details of this one model, but rather in the very idea of the mind as a kind of "meat computer". That's going to be the key to unraveling consciousness (though, as I said, we're not presently close). The point I was trying to make below is that this computational theory of mind doesn't require any kind of weird quantum mechanical spookiness (i.e., "non-locality") to get off the ground. Penrose, bless his eccentric soul, has really just gotten carried away with this stuff.
yeah we're quite impulsive i guess, and as animals living on a time line it must be ergo-sum, however i believe we must be also connected to higher state s out of the confinds of time and space which i would assume would be the quantum element?
i think my brain, as just exploded
So while determinism is true, it's not the same as "inevitability". Events become increasingly "evitable" (i.e., avoidable) with the continuing evolution of intelligence. Our ability to survey a range of alternative moves and select whichever one appears most promising (that is, our "free will" in this naturalized sense) is an evolved capacity of our minds, and in no way violates determinism. In terms of mental computation, these kinds of avoidance algorithms are textbook examples of it.
Wait a minute, is that what Schrodinger said he meant? I don't remember that when I read, "Schrodinger's Cat". Do I really have to reread the book? Do I have to track down the scientists who knew him? Which ones are still alive? Oh btw not all scientists agree on all the aspects of quantum mechanics. ie. quantum mechanics is not fully understood.
Where is it possible to meet Prof. Dr. Sir Penrose in order to shake his hand?
Dr. Sir Penrose's social secretary just called. He doesn't want to shake your hand. Thank you in advance for your understanding.
lol
Its sad how widely criticized he has been for his perspective. Hes a pretty creative guy.
Of course when they find he’s correct they’ll disparage that too
He doesn‘t give a fuck😂he knows that he is right
Tegmark's early calculations have been rejected and corrected by Stuart Hameroff, see "Defense of OR". Indeed there have been found places where quantum coherence goes even up with temperature, demonstrated in experiments.
(Tegmark, continued)
This means that although the current state-of-the-art in neural network hardware is clearly still very far from being able to model and understand cognitive processes as complex as those in the brain, there are no quantum mechanical reasons to doubt that this research is on the right track."
Please see the body of the paper, which is available at arxiv . org, for detailed computations.
The first person experience of the world that a conscious being has is non-computational simply because it cannot be represented. Only what can be represented could be computed iff it is representable in terms of recursively enumerable functions.
idk there are theorys tht talk about us drawing our conciousness from a "feild" or pretta / sub cocious, so in tht sense we are dancing with theuniverse, and our brains act as the funell? and as i have heard our actual point of awarnes is well behind the brain activity, although i'm noexpert, what i am saying is at what point does it become metta? is our conciousness /"awareness" just the little gap inbetween and maybe its just all part of the same thing!??lol space, time, and now confuse me!
i don't want to talk about metaphysics seriously but with all these things that i have read about relativity and quantum mechanics the notion that our future already exists and we are continuously traveling towards the future is it possible that we may live the same life over and over like a loop with different outcomes and that the nature of reality is debatable.Consciousness makes a person feel like he experiences reality with himself as the centre the [protagonist].Is it possible that we live in a simulated universe like Nick Bostrom theorises?
Yes. And I am the simulator. Since you are very close to perceiving the Reflexive nature of the cosmos I regret to inform you it is time for you to be recycled -- er, terminated. I hope you've enjoyed your stay.
not enjoyed enough but black could be a space time glitch we just name it ''distortion''
Could ExitStance be a quantum state, where conscience (consciousness) selects nascent planes of oblique reference to justify awareness? As though we are perpetually selecting a preferred elevation of quantum projections... Like Maya in the Vedas... Past teachings and future endeavours make the best present!
preferred elevation of quantum projections = no inherent existence - a Buddhist concept.
It has been said that Religion and Science are in opposition but we are continually reminded that Religion is the practical element of the Scientific theory, as you have quite rightly pointed out. Thank you.
New GUT physics ideas for 2014....Secret Technology Revealed -IVCVT Fractal Gears .... Strings may just be the path of contact shown in the video link ... Schrodingers equations explained geometrically ....Wave-Particle duality redefined.
I propose PENROSE's Cat -- you know, the experiment where the photon either turned on the microphone or didn't turn it on inside the cat's box, and the poor cat either did or did not kill itself -- assuming WE lived through the lecture to open the lid and take a look, and the photon didn't run out the back door of the lecture hall. "Here's a brown thing, and it hits the brown thing, and it produces a whole lot of stuff." I have a guess on what is the brown thing.
Penrose's little scritchy-scratch drawings seem a lot quainter and more cozily home-made than PowerPoint, and golly, I sure miss PowerPoint.
+BobStBubba Just because YOU didn't understand the lecture...
Jacques Brel - Quand on n'a que l'amour
And as we always intuited, Penrose explains that they are NOT probabilities (re: quantum alternatives A or B).
Maybe, but what I've seen is a proof of that fact by modern technology ..... technology that was not around 30-40 years ago, so I doubt if it's as conclusive.
It's really a shame.
By looking at the number of views, people who are interested in this have become very rare, sad times.
All that most average people nowadays hear from physics is TV documentaries grotesquely dumbed down (so that it fits the rest of TV programs and people who watch don't feel dumb).
BTW Penrose is great, i consider getting me some of his books.
Fucking genius.period.
🌷🕊✋🎺
Microtubes are clearly the way to build room temperature quantum computers!
so in the end those can be in superposition's and parallel universes do exist!! crazy world!! if it works?!?!!! :D
he looks really really healthy for being 81. if no one told me id think he as 60
No, it doesn't imply that. Of course, the issue of free will is very fraught and difficult --- prone to deep misconception. Our best understanding of physics forces us to accept some version of determinism (that the state of the universe at any future time is strictly determined by its state now). Quantum indeterminacy exists, but essentially cancels itself out at the macroscopic scale of our neural cells. But determinism doesn't rule out free will --- or at least not the kind worth wanting.
I wonder whether we would actually hear about it if the neuroscientists, philosophical materalists almost every one, discovered evidence of Penrose's quantum brain theory? Who would risk their career telling the truth on that one if the preponderance of prejudice went against it?
He's 81. 80-fkn-1!
I disagree as those who achieve union with conciousness all describe thoughts as hindrances, distractions and quite seperate from the experience of pure being ie conciousness. I have had such experiences personally.
Non-computable does not imply "can't be done by a computer". It has a very precise meaning in a very narrow context. Stick to physics.
***** Except that all modern computers are finite state machines that can't compute anything with arbitrary sized input. However they can, for inputs of any bounded size, jump to the solution in a single clock cycle if they have a big table of all possible inputs. Turing machines don't really make that good of a model of real computers unless you're worrying about being able to handle inputs of any size (which in the real world you usually aren't).
+David Battle mechanical-autistical-machine-mind objects to the idea that we cannot make conscious machines.
MultiMdave Integer division is non-computable? Lol. What a bunch of blather. I thought you might know what you're talking about before you said that. Post's Correspondence Problem and the Halting Problem are "non-computable", and I won't be supplying code, because there isn't any that works other than trial and error and hoping you hit the solution because there may or may not be one and it could potentially take forever to find it. But real machines have a FINITE memory. There is a finite number of states they can be in. Eventually a real physical machine will with be in the same state again, or it will go through all of them. It can't go on forever without infinite memory.
MultiMdave If you understood english "than" you could write coherently.
MultiMdave Yeah "MultiMDave". At least my ego is my real identity and I don't have to hide behind a false name. Plus you're really making my point. Turing machines are pretend. Real machines have finite memory and therefore are just finite automata. By the way my picture is from about 30 years ago when I was studying for a PhD in computer science. Your picture is, what exactly, I can't tell. A carton or something?
49:49 - "There's something else going on. What is that something else?"
It is for science to dicover or IGNORE if they so chooses!. Our science is by consensus mostly becuase the "proof" in most causes even supported by observations are flawed in many ways. Penrose is good in a ny of explaining complex concepts in simple terms that most people understands. This brings more interest in QM and complex science to the masses. That way the "institution' can have a large collection of people who agrees with the conclusions. Even with flaws in conclusions in some cases. That is why science evolves over time as well. ie 2nd law of Thermodynamics!.
The nature of unformed awareness.
***** lol
I THINK THE POINTS TOUCHED ON HERE WOULD BE MORE EASILY DIGESTABLE WITH LOGIC NOT MATH, especially when u dont have time to clearly explain ure workings, making it hard to understand ure points, However; interesting stuff.
...a thought occurred - how might "non-computational" encryption work...?
action at a distance, otherwise known as Bells Paradox, which Einstein described as spooky.
DavidAKZ...by that, do you mean "acausal" perhaps...? But anyway, there is no "spooky" when you realise that before the "chunking" of measurement, all you have is a wave-continuum which needn't travel anywhere, because it is already in contact with both "ends" simultaneously. I was told this is what QFT says, though I haven't studied it in any detail as yet.
Sultan Khan
Trying hard to answer your question. By 'computational encryption', I take it you mean some sort of algorithm based on a mathematical polynomial. If that is what you are referring to , then the encryption has to be discretised via the process of (binary) computation.
With analogue systems, no computation (intermediation) is required.
tinyurl.com/kumk7c7
Crazy's ok if it works.
I love psychologie, and philosophy, they have A role in understanding the unknown but have no place in quantum physics. I would ad perception as a very important variable. Perception plays a very important part in our personal evolution as humans, and it can play a vital role in understanding what we do not. Still without any of its own place in quatum equations. A bit sad. Kinda like for the ant, a handfull of sand is a mountain for her.
The physicist Tom Campbell also adresses this problem and has a simpler explanation - but it reverses the order of consciousness and material - which is a difficult concept to get on board with. And has very far reaching consequences.
His lecture in Spain is instructive regarding quantum information erasure.
Tom Campbell is Alex Jones in disguise.
Computers are not designed to be conscious.I often say they are response to input devices while brains are response to experience devices and there is no quantum theory of the soul.Nature dose well without understanding Its designed eyes without much trouble and light is something we can experiment wit to learn how to make eyes.I seriously believe an experience device would be so simple it would make people cry but the problem is,if you made a device that could experience it could not tell you so and if it could tell you so then it would not experience try doing both by an accidental circuit even when simple, the chances of doing both at the same time is very unlikely but individually its probably common. Its very likely even insects can experience color for example so really studying a human brain is probably overkill.What I would do if I had the means is to try and figure out how to do reverse engineering of a simple nervous system I used to call it reverse engineering steriolithography Seams strange but I figured it out striolithography years ago just didn't know what to call it now 3 d printers are everywhere.The plan was to freeze somehow the whole thing after staining it. then cut it into layers recording each layer then re creating the whole thing in different scales etc all.The idea being if you could do this good enough you could re create a human brain and have it work like the original even while you still don't know how it works and of course in a way that makes studying it much easier.I got a few UA-cams now that are crude and incomplete explaining how the universe and time started and will do some on this later.Just too much for here.It is time for some real science.
Been planing to do a UA-cam on this stuff and it really depends on how your staining.Long ago I soaked up silver nitrate into a cloth and on drying burned it and was surprised at the detain it preserved,Its crude but gives one ideas. I have also read about Osmium tetroxide used to stain cells for the electron microscope and yes its to withstand the electron beams.There are so many ways to stain or even replace proteins that the subject is just too long but you can bet it would involve some new technologies.Got any ideas ?.
You do know water freezes just by pressure alone about 8 tons sq inch to -40 C possibly with no volume changes and different cryoprotectionists Higher pressures above that to remain frozen at room temp.Ive been looking at alternatives ideas to cryogenics too so there is just so many possibilities.
1. is it that the physicists earlier and now were intelligent or clever? because of the extraordinary complexity they invented ? is cleverness intelligence? there is so much weight to all this,people are suggesting ideas, to get a Nobel prize- and these things become a part of high school, or university curriculum to repeat it.repeating becomes extraordinarily important , to pass exams and so on. it seems any physicist, or any theory that promotes such kind of repetition is stupid ,surely, although it contains extraordinary jargon and concepts. repetition is addiction, whether it is of drugs, coffee, tobacco, or repeating concepts. isn't it?
2. there are exams all round the world , which focus on solving extraordinarily , complex problems , in a time frame, and such kind of culture which doesn't encourage ,looking at the problem, rather, immediately solving it , by a theory, is encouraged and emphasized,by the whole education system.and time has become the primary factor for educationists-that one must complete education by a certain time, university admissions uptil a certain age,once the train is missed, you lose your ticket to so called intelligence hood. does such a culture , lead to intelligence ? and therefore there is competition which , again reinforces violence and orthodoxy.
3. and are those educationists intelligent or promoting intelligence ,when they are being impatient and say- i wont give my life to see , that one is intelligent,not just worry about their theories and achievements?
"Provided that that time is really long and the computer is larger than normal, from what I've heard..."
Well, it all depends on the size of the simulation, but the point is, it is just additional computation. You're not going to get "red" from computation, no matter how much computation you do. Self-representing information, on the other hand, COULD do that IF you assume that, because the information is self-representing, it is also self-defined. "Red" is also self-defined.
it‘s 10 years，we shall have the answer😂
What is the brain made of?
This is an invitation to see a theory on the nature of time! In this theory we have an emergent uncertain future continuously coming into existence relative to the spontaneous absorption and emission of photon energy. Within such a process the wave particle duality of light and matter in the form of electrons is forming a blank canvas that we can interact with forming the possible into the actual! The future is unfolding with each photon electron coupling or dipole moment relative to the atoms of the periodic table and the wavelength of the electromagnetic spectrum. As part of a universal process of energy exchange that forms the ever changing world of our everyday life the ‘past’ has gone forever. At the smallest scale of this process the ‘past’ is represented by anti-matter annihilation with the symmetry between matter and anti-matter representing the symmetry between the future and the past as the future unfolds photon by photon. In such a theory the mathematics of quantum mechanics represents the physics of ‘time’ with the classical physics of Newton representing processes over a period of time, as in Newton’s differential equations. In my videos I explain how this process is relative to temperature and the phase changes of matter.
all the way to Einstein
Quantum Mechanics 101: You just read this and you also didn't just read this at the same time. And there is no difference between red or read.
Sorry, it seems like a huge mash-up of randomly-selected ideas. The individual ideas are all very interesting and quite valid on their own, but the connections are in the private fantasy of Penrose himself. Many listeners would lose him at some point, joining him in his dream-like fantasy that all this has to do with the ultimate mystery of consciousness. In spite of all the references to real science, this is speculative philosophy. When he starts to connect quantum mechanics with beauty and morality, you know he's taken a wrong turn somewhere.
You should be sorry, since you have no idea what you're talking about, and have made no effort to correct that, yet you make grand disparaging remarks about another person who has made a huge effort.
Well that is a Deist view, which is far more palatable than the traditional view of a God interacting with his "creation".
Obviously.
Professor Dr. Sir lol
I'm sorry that I couldn't participate and say hello, and I couldn't rely on today's pen.
= = == ==== ==== == = =
- TITLE : Sun is Eye's ##
- Writer : HanTaeeun ##
- TIME : 2022.09.15 AM 13:57:53
Today, Mari is more passionate about her dance than Mari.
Both sides of the art of action go together in perfection and instability,
It's 59 years relief, so it's the day to paint the circle and sphere and sing the birth.
The ribbons on its fingers stretch and flow in circles and spirals.
And 1059's Love is the glory of the show.
So you started using signpen it even though it's all your fault.
Woo~ Woooo~~!! Woo~ Woooo~~!!
= = == ==== ==== == = =
Be's set arch for the incomplete Sun you don't like if you can't always do it perfectly.
To the first master, [ Matsuda Seiko ]...Send...
To the second master, [ Okada Yukiko ]...Send...
To the third master, [ Han Taeeun ]...Send...
...[ Kamachi Noriko ]...
...[ Sato Kayo ]...
...[ Matsunaga Mikage ]...
If Schroedinger had used a dead/alive rat, would it have got so much attention?
Well, either it would, or it wouldn't? ;)
Oh, but you do have scientific facts regardless of the metaphysics (and vice versa) - take for example Quantum mechanics - there are several metaphysical interpretations of the mathematics and of the observed facts, and some prominent scientists (e.g. Richard Feynman, Steven Weinberg) won't endorse any metaphysics - do they not have facts if they reject metaphysics, I think they would all agree on the same measurements and phenomena - the metaphysical "explanation" does not contribute a thing.
that makes no sense knowing that both are flawed? we must be a combination of the two? if ure correct; where do u draw the line between the perceived and the perceiver?
is ure conciousness not a combination of the two? who's to say u're not part of ure chair? only u.........
"For example, Hameroff's correspondents in Japan have found qubits in microtubules, I believe."
I am pretty sure the Japanese could pull a Toyota out of a microtubule, but that doesn't mean it is in there. In other words, they are VERY good at distorting the facts. Qubits are in EVERYTHING. A couple of qubits do not justify Penrose's claim. #1 Penrose has to show it is non-computation (something that CAN'T be done). #2 Penrose has to show it is a global (brain-scale) phenomena=>contradicts QM.
*phenomenon
Your argument is defeated.
There is noone who had greater influence on me then Roger Penrose, but his quantum gravity proposal eliminates what he is trying to explain: Consciousness. The first interpretation of QT gives Consciousness an important place in the physical world. One is not going to explain Consciousness by eliminating the role it plays in QT. The whole philosophy of QT is based on the idea that observation creates reality. Without the role of Cons. QT becomes a completly random Th. without any core statement.
Please camera...STAY ON THE DIAGRAMS. Roger wants us to LOOK AT THE DIAGRAMS.
Roger has taken a lot of time and trouble to prepare his diagrams for the audience to look at whilst he talks. WHY CAN`T THE CAMERA STAY ON THEM?
If you were in the audience you would be glued to them, and NOT LOOKING AWAY.
Cameramen see what they are recording as a show rather than a lecture, so like to show people's faces instead of slides! I always insist on receiving a copy of any video of my talks for myself, in order that I can edit in slides as may be necessary.
Because the camera man is an idiot
"He is trying to develop a scientific theory of consciousness,..."
I understand EXACTLY what he is doing. I wrote a 20 page paper on it 15 years ago (at the time I thought he was right, but my research on that paper made me highly doubt his case). That is not the problem here. The problem here is that he made the claim about 23 years ago (the first time), and neither he, nor anyone else, has produce a SHRED of evidence to back it up.
"Will this be on the test?"
If you want to eat then you’d corner a deer. Math would help. It seems to be to me the way it works. If you could design the best method then you have used math.
Great talk... it could be greatly improved though if he used more technology instead of simply hand-drawing and writing things.
Cristián Paris
His transparencies are one of the most wonderful things about him and his delivery. He's a person. He's not information. If you don't like it, skip Roger and read a book.
Jennifer Grove Nonono! This is a common mistake in Science in my opinion. The contents are as important as the way in which you present them. Form IS important.
People have to be allowed to be who they are. If you want to access only the content, then skip the person and *_go read a book!_*
Jennifer Grove Agreed but a book is not the same as a presentation. A presentation is more interesting since there is a more direct interaction between the content and the people accessing it. Now, a presentation is much better if it uses modern technology instead of seventies technology. I admire Roger's work, and I won't deny that he may have his traits; I'm just saying the presentation could be improved. What's wrong with this?
Which is not to say that the presentation isn't good or interesting. It is VERY intersting, as is Roger's work ;)